Security Clearance Law Blog

Psychological Conditions and Security Clearances

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com 

When an individual is facing issues related to a particular psychological condition, either during the application process for a security clearance or after they obtain a security clearance, it is important for them to obtain legal advice and possible representation in order to provide the best opportunity to maintain access to classified information.  There are a number of security concerns relating to psychological conditions that can be potentially mitigated iif the right evidence is presented.  

Guideline I - Psychological Concerns

Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines (contained within DOD Directive 5220.6) governs security clearance issues involving psychological conditions.  Guideline I provides the following security concerns about individuals with psychological conditions:

The Concern. Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline. No negative inference concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of seeking mental health counseling.

How to Mitigate (Resolve) Psychological Concern Issues

We often represent and advise individuals regarding mental health concerns that arise in the course and scope of holding or seeking to obtain a security clearance.  Typically, mitigation will require the assistance of an individual’s medical professionals in order to demonstrate that the psychological condition does not remain a significant security concern.  The following are some of the types of mitigation arguments that can be made in security clearance cases (in any given case, some will apply, and others will not):

1. Evidence which shows that the psychological condition is under control with treatment;

2. Evidence which demonstrates that the individual has demonstrated ongoing compliance with medical treatment (and consistency);

3. Evidence that the individual has entered a counseling or other treatment program by qualified medical professionals;

4. Medical opinions by qualified mental health professionals which show that the psychological condition is under control; 

5. Evidence that the psychological condition at issue was temporary in nature and/or no longer remains a current problem; and/or

6. Evidence from family and friends which demonstrates that an individual has recovered from psychological conditions.

Sample Cases

The following are summaries of sample cases involving Guideline I cases before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) involving psychological conditions:

1. ISCR Case Number: 07-10169 (May 2010) (Applicant was diagnosed with major depression, recurrent, moderate, without psychosis; dysthymic disorder history; panic disorder without agoraphobia; and generalized anxiety disorder.  Clearance was granted because DOHA found that Applicant’s psychological conditions were under control and managed properly by Applicant’s physicians). 

2. ISCR Case Number:  09-02257 (Aug. 2010) (Applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, but DOHA granted clearance finding that Applicant’s medications were being properly managed and that the Applicant’s mental health had improved to the point where he was in remission).

3. ISCR Case Number: 12-00322.h1 (Jan. 2014) (Applicant's diagnosed psychological condition, bi-polar disorder, was not mitigated (and clearance was denied) due to the absence of current evidence from a mental health professional to corroborate his claim that he no longer needed medication or consultation);

4. ISCR Case Number: 09-00318.h1 (June. 2012) (Applicant’s history of non-compliance with medical treatment for diagnosed bi-polar disorder, resulting in judgment difficulties and behavioral problems causing hospitalization was not mitigated and clearance was denied);

5. ISCR Case Number. 10-01525 (March 2012) (Applicant mitigated the psychological conditions concern under Guideline I, as depression was in remission and no current problems existed.  Applicant had previously suffered from episodes of depression in 2003, 2006, and 2009, but quickly overcame these bouts on his own (two being clearly related to outside stressors, including a divorce after 14 years of marriage).  

Conclusion

When an individual is seeking advice regarding a psychological condition as it impacts a security clearance, it is important to obtain legal representation.  Our law firm advises individuals in the security clearance process. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070.  Our Facebook page is located at https://www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

 

Seeking Reconsideration When a Security Clearance is Denied

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com

There are times when an individual is denied or loses his/her existing security clearance, and subsequently attempts to regain his/her clearance. We typically see this occur when a government contractor appeals an adverse clearance determination to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) and loses his/her clearance appeal.  The individual then loses access to classified information and is barred for a period of one year from seeking reconsideration on the clearance decision.   

The procedures for seeking reconsideration for most government contractors are detailed in DODD Directive 5220.6, Enclosure 3.  This Directive covers most Department of Defense-connected government contractors.  Federal employees follow a different process for security clearance decisions.  

The Security Clearance Denial

Before seeking reconsideration for a security clearance determination from DOHA, there has to be a final denial of the security clearance by DOHA. Directive 5220.6, Enclosure 3, E3.1.37, specifies that “an applicant whose security clearance has been finally denied or revoked by DOHA is barred from reapplication for 1 year from the date of the initial unfavorable clearance decision.”  This means that seeking reconsideration generally can occur one year after the date of: (1) the DOHA Administrative Judge’s final decision to deny the individual’s security clearance, or (2) an unfavorable decision from the DOHA Appeal Board on an appeal from the DOHA Administrative Judge’s decision.  

Just because the individual is barred from reapplication of a clearance position for one year does not necessarily mean that that the individual should immediately re-apply at the end of the 12-month waiting period. The individual should re-apply when the original security concerns have been sufficiently mitigated as opposed to the first moment that he/she becomes eligible to seek reconsideration.  In addition, it is important to have legal counsel review the original security concerns before seeking reconsideration.  

The Reconsideration Process

The reconsideration process generally begins when the government contractor has waited at least one year to seek another position that requires access to classified information.  The process unfolds as follows:

1. A year has passed and the individual seeking the clearance believes that he/she has mitigated or reduced the original security concerns that led to the denial.

2. The individual applies for a new employment position for which a security clearance is required.

3. The individual is hired for the position requiring the clearance.

4. The individual completes a new SF-86 / e-QIP and submits it to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO), along with a request for reconsideration.

5. The individual will then receive a notice from DISCO stating that he must provide the Director of DOHA (Director) with: (1) a copy of the original security clearance decision denial, and (2) any evidence the employee wishes to submit that would provide a basis for reconsideration (e.g., any information about additional mitigation that has taken place since the original denial).

6. If the Director, in his/her discretion determines that sufficient changes have occurred since the original denial, the Director can grant reconsideration.  If the Director determines that reconsideration is not warranted, the individual is barred again from re-applying for reconsideration for an additional one-year period from the date of the Director's decision.

7. If reconsideration is granted by the Director, the Director will then determine whether or not the original security concerns have been mitigated.  If the original security concerns have been determined to be mitigated, the case is then processed as a new investigation with the older security concerns resolved.  

8. If reconsideration is granted, but the Director does not believe that the original security concerns have been fully mitigated, the investigation is sent to the DOHA hearings unit for further review and a new hearing.

Other agencies follow their own procedures for security clearance reconsideration with respect to their own government contractors; however, the above rules apply for the vast majority of individuals covered by the Department of Defense.

Conclusion

When an individual is seeking reconsideration in reference to a security clearance matter, it is important to obtain legal representation.  Our law firm advises individuals in the security clearance reconsideration process. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. 

7 Recommendations for the Security Clearance Process When Problems Arise

By John V Berry, www.berrylegal.com 

The following are 7 recommendations for federal employees and government contractors (also referred to as “applicants” when they are applying or re-applying for a security clearance) to consider when they discover that they could have problems in their security clearance application. 

Usually, an applicant first discovers a potential problem area when they contemplate completing their security clearance application (e-QIP / SF-86). Concern is usually first raised when an applicant reviews the questions in the application package and finds a question that cannot be answered with a clear "no." (example: In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances?).  When this occurs, an applicant should consult with legal counsel early to determine the best strategy for avoiding the potential loss of an existing security clearance for a clearance holder or an initial denial for a new applicant.  

General Recommendations

The following are some general tips to consider when facing security clearance issues: 

1. Obtain Legal Advice Early: An applicant has the best chance of resolving security concerns when they recognize a potential issue and seek counsel early.  Doing so at the beginning of the clearance process usually maximizes the ability of an applicant to mitigate the security concerns. It is often the case that we see applicants that are seeking to appeal an adverse clearance determination, after the initial stages have been adjudicated. In many stages of the clearance appeal process, if evidence is not presented at the early determinations, an appeal may not permit additional evidence to be submitted following the denial (example: an adverse decision issued following a DOHA hearing to a government contractor).  Appeals can be difficult so obtaining counsel at the early stages of the clearance process is critical.  

2. Be Honest Throughout the Clearance Process: This tip may seem obvious, but it cannot be overstated.  Applicants should be honest in the clearance process. When an applicant is not honest during the clearance process it not only can bar the individual from receiving a security clearance (often forever), but can raise a host of other legal issues for not being honest on the application itself.  It is a lot easier for a security clearance attorney to mitigate security clearance concerns involving prior drug or alcohol usage, than it is to defend against an allegation that an applicant was not honest in their clearance application or interview about these issues.  The applicant, before any such disclosures, should consult with a clearance lawyer for legal advice.  

3. Proofread the SF-86 / e-QIP Carefully: There are often applicants that receive clearance denials where they did not adequately read the questions or proofread their responses on the SF-86 / e-QIP prior to submission.  This is very important to understand.  In some cases, if an applicant does not take the time to read the question and answers "no" when they should have answered "yes" to a particular question, a clearance investigator might conclude that the applicant was attempting to be untruthful.  It is very important to carefully complete the security clearance application before it is submitted. 

4. Gather Relevant Documents Prior to Completing Clearance Forms:  Take the time to gather relevant documents, in advance, related to any potential security clearance problem areas.  Doing so will help an applicant in 2 ways: (1) it will help an applicant remember all of the details of the potential security concern (examples: an arrest or bankruptcy filing that occurred 5 years ago) in preparation for answering questions; and (2) the documentation may help to mitigate the security concerns if it is later needed.  Note: this should be discussed with an attorney prior to an investigative interview or prior to providing documents. 

5. Prepare for the Investigative Interview: If an applicant knows that there is a good chance that problem areas exist in a security clearance application, he or she should expect to be asked about the areas in advance by the investigator that is assigned. These interviews can vary from 1 hour to several hours depending on whether significant security concerns exist. Preparation (and practice) for the interview can help iron out any problem areas in advance.  Doing so can also provide confidence to the applicant when the time comes to meet with the investigator and to explain their responses to any security concerns.  

6.  Don’t React Defensively to Security Clearance Questions:  When asked about problem areas in a security clearance application by an investigator, do not react defensively.  It is important to be calm and positive about the issues when speaking to an investigator.  This is why we generally recommendation preparing with counsel for a security clearance interview if there are significant security issues that may be raised.  In addition, arguing with an investigator will never benefit an applicant in a security clearance investigation.  

7.  Understand the Timeline for the Security Clearance Process:  When security clearance issues develop, it is important to understand that the process can either be resolved quickly (few weeks) to a number of months depending on a number of factors including: (a) whether the applicant is a federal employee or government contractor; (b) the number or significance of the security concerns; (c) delays in obtaining responses from federal agencies in seeking an investigative file; (d) the general investigative backlog; and (e) the specific employer involved.  There are a multitude of other considerations that can also delay adjudication.  

Conclusion

When security clearance issues arise for an applicant, it is important to obtain the advice of an attorney and potential representation.  It is important to do so as early in the clearance process as possible. Our law firm advises individuals in the security clearance process, in addition to representing them as they proceed through the investigations process. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. 

Congress Proposes Changes to Security Clearance Process

By John V. Berry, www.berrylegal.com    

Congress appears to be currently be considering changes to the security clearance process for federal employees and government contractors.  There have been news accounts over the last few days which seems to indicate bi-partisan movement towards reforming the security clearance process as it currently exists.  This, in response to the Snowden and Navy Yard incidents, along with the recent allegations regarding reforms needed in the clearance investigations process by contractors.

One area of potential bi-partisan agreement regarding changes to the security clearance process involves the possibility of continuous monitoring (if that is currently possible) of those holding security clearances.  This, as opposed to the 5 and 10-year renewal process that currently exists (and the voluntary disclosure system currently in place). There is also some consideration being given to shortening the period of time between clearance checks.  There remains a potential partisan battle as to who will conduct clearance investigations, with Republicans wanting to generally retain private contractors to perform these duties and Democrats believing that clearance investigations should be conducted in house.  

It appears that it is just a matter of time before the security clearance process undergoes changes.  It is too soon to tell what final form these changes will take, but it appears that there is a move to tighten the clearance process.  The end result may be a shortening of the time between clearance checks or perhaps a modified monitoring system depending on current technological abilities.  Our law firm represents federal employees and government contractors in security clearance matters and can be contacted at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com for legal advice and/or representation.  

Security Clearance Interviews

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com

When individuals have difficulties in the security clearance process or anticipate future difficulties, we advise and represent them the investigation process.  Typically, the best opportunity to avoid future security clearance difficulties is when government contractors or federal employees obtain legal advice early in the process, before they meet with a security clearance investigator.  This article discusses some of the issues associated with preparing for and meeting with a security clearance investigator in the beginning of the security clearance process. 

Interview Preparation

One of the most important considerations in meeting with a security clearance investigator for the first time is to be prepared in advance for the meeting, especially where there may be potential disqualifying issues or areas of concern.  We find that most government contractors and federal employees have a general sense of potential clearance problems when they are completing their e-QIP / SF-86 application.  Usually, a person is alerted to potential problems when they find that they may have to answer "yes" to a particular question where a disclosure is required. 

For instance, suppose an individual has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and has had to list “yes” under Section 22 of the SF-86 application. It can generally be assumed that the security clearance investigator will then have questions about the arrest, the disposition of the charge and whether or not the arrest demonstrates an ongoing alcohol issue.  As a result, an individual should be well prepared to discuss these issues with the investigator. It may even be helpful to outline a full response in advance to the questions that could arise. If there are multiple issues of concern of the same type (i.e. multiple traffic arrests for alcohol use) there may need to be additional advance preparation to demonstrate to the investigator that these similar issues don’t represent a pattern and are unlikely to be repeated in the future.

In short, the key to a successful security clearance interview is advance preparation and honesty. 

Gather Important Documents in Advance of Interview

Another important consideration with respect to an individual’s meeting with a security clearance investigator is to gather documents in advance that may be important to provide at the security clearance interview.  This is important if there are issues that are certain to be raised with respect to a security clearance investigation.  For instance, suppose an individual has previously declared bankruptcy and has documentation regarding their bankruptcy filing and also their efforts to resolve their financial debts. These types of documents may be important to provide early in the process to the investigator, depending on the nature of an individual case. 

In short, when an individual knows that there are likely to be issues of concern with their security clearance, it is important to gather all of the relevant documentation related to the issue and then consult with an attorney to discuss the best method to present documents to an investigator in attempting to mitigate any security concerns

Answer the Questions Asked

One of the other issues we often notice in security investigator meetings is the tendency of some individuals to provide additional information that is not sought.  We advise government contractors and federal employees to answer the questions asked by investigators, as honestly as possible, but to stick to the actual questions that are posed.  On many occasions, individuals can get sidetracked or provide information that is not relevant to the questions asked by an investigator.

The usual key to a successful interview is to be as responsive as possible to any areas of concern but to make the meeting with the clearance investigator as “to the point” as possible.  Investigators tend to have many cases to review and like to focus on their particular areas of concern.  The better an individual can address specific issues raised by an investigator efficiently, the better the potential outcome.  When issues arise, it is important to consult with counsel to obtain the best legal advice possible in presenting one’s response to difficult questions. 

Be Prepared for Follow Up

Should the investigator need additional information regarding potential areas of concern or need to interview an individual a second time, we typically advise individuals to attempt to anticipate these requests in advance to the extent possible.  For instance, if an investigator (during an initial interview) appears to have questions about one’s medical issues (example: psychological concerns), it may be helpful to attempt to obtain a letter from a medical professional which shows that the psychological concerns are not a significant issue.  Doing so, in advance, can save time and effort later should the investigator come back with additional questions or may resolve the issue early. 

Conclusion

When potential security clearance issues arise, it is important to obtain the advice of counsel where possible disqualification issues could arise.  It is important to do so as early in the process as possible. Our law firm stands ready to advise individuals in the security clearance process, in addition to represent them as they proceed through the investigations process. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. 

The Security Clearance Appeal Process

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com

The security clearance appeal process seems to be constantly changing as laws and regulations are updated in response to current events.  News events, like the Edward Snowden matter and others have caused additional scrutiny on the security clearance process itself and no doubt will be the cause of additional changes to the security clearance appeal process in the future.  Our law firm practices security clearance law and this article provides an update on the security clearance appeals process for federal employees and government contractors. 

Following a security clearance denial there are a number of appellate options for federal employee and government contractors.  The security clearance process generally unfolds as follows:

The Statement of Reasons (SOR)

The Statement of Reasons (SOR) is the centerpiece of any security clearance case.  The allegations contained within the SOR will be the start of any legal defense to the issues raised.  When we meet with potential clients who have been issued an SOR we first go over the allegations in depth, find out whether any or all of the allegations are true and whether there are any mitigating factors to the security concerns.  A high level of detail is needed at this point in order to fully respond to the SOR.  Following the SOR, the process moves to the response and appeals stage, depending on where an individual is employed.

Clearance Appeals Process for Federal Employees

For federal employees, the SOR is the start of the clearance review process.  Generally, the next step, depending on the individual federal agency involved is for the individual to respond to the SOR through the individual agency and the Department of Defense Central Adjudication Facility (DoDCAF) (other federal agencies like CIA, NGA, DOE, etc. have their own separate appeals processes). 

Generally, a federal employee will respond to a Letter of Intent to Deny a Security Clearance (LOI), which is attached to the SOR.  The federal employee then has the opportunity to rebut the allegations in the SOR to a security clearance adjudicator in writing.  If the adjudicator agrees with the federal employee’s written response the matter is then resolved and the person is granted their security clearance.  If not, the next stage is for the federal employee to appeal the adverse decision.

A federal employee’s appeal of an adverse decision by DoDCAF is completed either by requesting a decision from their agency’s personnel security appeals board (PSAB) or by requesting the appointment of an administrative judge (and a hearing) from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).  As we recommend for government contractors, we also generally recommend that a federal employee appeal an adverse clearance decision from DoDCAF to DOHA first.  The DOHA administrative judge will then hold a hearing, permit an individual to present evidence and examine witnesses and will then issue a recommended decision which will then go to the PSAB for consideration.  The PSAB, generally consisting of 3 members, will then vote on whether or not to grant the security clearance.  Generally, it is better to have a full record before the PSAB in order to provide the best chance of success. 

Clearance Appeals Process for Government Contractors

For government contractors, the process of rebutting an SOR is a bit different.  A government contractor will generally have the option of responding to the SOR in writing or through a personal appearance before an administrative judge at the DOHA.  We generally advise government contractors that the best approach to such appeals is to request a hearing before an administrative judge.  We have found in many cases that live testimony can potentially make the difference between obtaining or not obtaining a positive result regarding their security clearance.

If a written appeal (no hearing) is made, then DoDCAF will send the applicant a File of Relevant Material (FORM) which will contain the evidence against them in obtaining a clearance and they will then have the opportunity to respond in writing to the FORM.  However, if one elects an administrative judge and hearing, there will be the opportunity to present all of an individual’s evidence in support of maintaining or obtaining one’s clearance and to fully examine witnesses to attempt to mitigate existing security concerns.  If the hearing goes forward, the administrative judge will then review the evidence presented and will then issue a decision.  If no response is elected or made, the contractor’s security clearance will be denied. 

If an adverse clearance decision is made, either in response to the written record or by an administrative judge, then the individual will have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the DOHA Appeal Board.  Following the ruling by DOHA or the DOHA Appeal Board, the decision is generally final and not subject to further appeal.  Following the DOHA decision, the contractor’s employer is notified of the decision about the security clearance and the procedures for later attempting to obtain a security clearance are provided.   

Conclusion

When facing a security clearance appeal it is important to obtain legal representation in order to provide the best opportunity to maintain or obtain an individual’s security clearance.  Our law firm stands ready to represent and advise individuals on appeals issues in the security clearance process.  We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. 

Bankruptcy for Security Clearance Holders in 2013

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com

A number of issues can arise in the context of bankruptcy proceedings for federal employees or government contractors holding security clearances.  We have a number of clients that consult with our Firm regarding the effect of filing for bankruptcy in the context of holding a security clearance.  Given the current government shutdown, there is the possibility that some clearance holders who have had previous financial difficulties (or may have been on the edge of financial difficulties before the shutdown) may be pushed into bankruptcy proceedings. The most important legal advice that we can offer these clients is that they should consult with legal counsel early, prior to engaging in the bankruptcy process, in order to develop a strategy for responding to security clearance issues that will arise.  

Strategies for Dealing with Bankruptcy for the Clearance Holder

Typically, filing for bankruptcy would raise 2 possible concerns under the Adjudicative Guidelines which govern security clearances.  The first and most obvious is Guideline F, Financial Considerations.  To a lesser extent, there is the possibility that a bankruptcy could raise issues under Guideline E, Personal Conduct.  This, however, is less likely. 

First of all, it is important that any bankruptcy be reported to one’s security officer promptly.  Not doing so could cause the clearance holder to run into more significant issues later on relating to the failure to report these issues.  Second, it is critically important that the individual establish a detailed (and written) record of responsibly dealing with the financial issues related to their pending or concluded bankruptcy (e.g. credit counseling, financial advisor assistance). 

In these types of cases, it is important to show that the individual has continued to work with creditors (even if the creditor is non-responsive).  For this purpose, it is important to keep copies of letters that one drafts to creditors attempting to resolve any outstanding debts.  It is also important to point out any ways in which the bankruptcy was caused by unique circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated.  Most important, in the security clearance context, it is important to show that the clearance holder has established a sound game plan so that the financial issues involved in a bankruptcy are unlikely to be repeated. 

Recent (2013) DOHA Cases Involving Bankruptcy Issues and Mitigation

A few recent 2013 cases from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) illustrate some important considerations in dealing with bankruptcy in the context of holding a security clearance. 

ISCR Case No. 11-14680 (Aug. 20, 2013) was a security clearance appeal in which the clearance holder was granted a security clearance.  The clearance holder had no financial difficulties until 2007 when his home went into foreclosure and he filed for bankruptcy. DOHA concluded that the clearance holder acted responsibly in attempting to resolve his financial difficulties, specifically, that he attempted to work with the bank holding his mortgage, had worked 2 jobs to meet expenses, engaged in credit counseling and showed evidence of reducing his living expenses. 

ISCR Case No. 11-09731 (Sept. 9, 2013) involved a security clearance holder that was shown to have a history of overdue debts, due to periods of medical leave without compensation, and a split from her significant other.  The clearance holder was also found to have been involved in gambling, which was not resolved. Her debts were not resolved in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy but DOHA found that mitigation had not been shown and denied the security clearance. 

ISCR Case No. 11-13879 (Sept. 17, 2013) involved a security clearance holder that filed for bankruptcy principally relating to owning 2 rental properties which became financially difficult to maintain in light of the financial downturn in the economy and in real estate values between 2007-2011. The clearance holder argued, and DOHA agreed, that the downturn in the economy was profound and warranted the application of mitigation.  The security clearance in this case was granted. 

Conclusion

When holding a security clearance it is important to obtain the advice of counsel where bankruptcy proceedings are anticipated. Our law firm stands ready to advise individuals regarding their security clearance in light of these difficult financial issues. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070 to schedule a consultation or meeting to discuss these issues.  

Seeking Information About JPAS Security Incident Reports

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com

It is often our experience that government contractors (and federal employees) can have difficulty in resolving JPAS Incident Reports placed on their government security clearance record by a current employer, former employer or other entity.  There are a variety of reasons why these issues arise, but the reality is that government contractors and federal employees need to take action when they become aware of an existing Incident Report in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS).  As most individuals that hold a security clearance are aware, JPAS is a computerized database maintained by the Department of Defense (DOD) which processes and evaluates eligibility for security clearance and access.  JPAS maintains Incident Reports which contain alleged security concerns that must be resolved for continued access to classified information.    

Seeking Information from OPM / DOD

It is often the case that an individual first becomes aware of an Incident Report when they apply for a government contractor position (they also find out in a number of other ways). They are told of an issue by their new employer, which must be resolved for them to transfer their security clearance and keep the new position.   Most of the time, an individual, however, does not have information specifying the specific security concern that is the problem.  As a result, the first step that is recommended for contractors and federal employees is to request a copy of all documents related to the security clearance process from the government in order to determine the extent of the existing security concern. 

By doing so, an individual may uncover errors in the information that is maintained in JPAS or the security concerns at issue that are listed in the Incident Report.  Typically, to obtain this information, we may file a joint Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of our individual clients.  In these requests, we typically seek copies of an employee’s prior background investigations, investigator summaries, and existing incident reports in addition to other information.  The requests have to be formatted properly before the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), on behalf of the DOD, will respond.

What Type of Information is Generally Provided by OPM / DOD

The amount and type of information provided in response to a Privacy Act or FOIA request will vary depending on how it is written.  Typically, the information provided within a JPAS Incident Report can be very helpful to understanding the nature of existing security concerns.  A JPAS Incident Report summary will provide the incident date, the receiving CAF and the CAF date of receipt, in addition to the incident criteria (the general security concern categories, e.g. personal conduct, foreign influence). 

The Incident Report will also provide an unclassified description of the security issue and basis for the action.  Generally, the description will include a synopsis of the security issue and is usually the most important piece of information that can be provided.  In addition to the Incident Report, other information may be provided in response to the Privacy Act request, to include a Person, Investigative and Adjudicative Summary report.   Contained in this type of information request response will also likely be a Message History report which itemizes the actions taken regarding the adjudication of the individual’s security clearance by the government. These documents and information can be helpful to determine progress regarding a security investigation and when issues have been raised and adjudicated.  

Conclusion

When facing an existing Incident Report it is important to obtain the advice of counsel in evaluating your legal options. There are a number of steps that need to be taken in order to begin the process of attempting to uncover the basis for an Incident Report and to attempt to begin to resolve the issues raised. Our law firm stands ready to advise individuals on these types of security clearance issues. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. 

Security Clearance Investigations Subject to Increased Scrutiny

By John V. Berry, Esq., www.berrylegal.com

In the wake of the Edward Snowden and Aaron Alexis security clearance issues, the contractors hired by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) are likely to increase scrutiny on pending security clearance applications.  Items that might have escaped scrutiny on security clearance applications just a few months ago may now lead to further investigation and possibly further adjudication before security clearance adjudicators (reviewers). 

Given the questions involving how and why Snowden and Alexis maintained their security clearances, the President has placed increased scrutiny on the security clearance process.  This kind of pressure has resulted in increased pressure by OPM on contractors that have been hired to conduct these investigations.  Furthermore, Congressional and criminal authorities have also started to review previous improprieties in contractor-based security clearance investigations adding to such pressures.   

In our practice, we represent federal employees and government contractors in their security clearance matters and have been noticing this additional scrutiny in the processing of e-QIP and SF-86 security clearance applications.  Relatively speaking, we have been noticing that more thorough background examinations seem to be occurring. Items in a background checks that might have gone unnoticed in the past, now may provoke additional questions as investigators appear to be under pressure for more thorough reviews. It is hard to say right now how long the additional scrutiny of security clearance applications may last, but it is likely to be the new norm for the foreseeable future.

When facing security clearance issues it is important to obtain the advice of counsel where potential issues might arise. An individual will want to obtain legal advice if there is reason for concern regarding a pending security clearance application. Our law firm stands ready to advise individuals on the issues involving security clearances. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070.

Partner John Berry Interviewed by ABC on Security Clearance Issues in Light of Navy Yard Incident

Berry & Berry Partner John Berry, Esq. was interviewed yesterday by ABC affiliate WJLA regarding new aspects of the security clearance process in light of the tragic Navy Yard incident.  ABC Interview with John Berry.